What's new

Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

It's not irresponsible if it's unjust.
OK and let's keep in mind you said it's up to the individual to decide that. So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?

You should be willing to answer the questions you pose other people. Unless you begin doing so, this discussion is over.
You can run away from this if you want. If I'd taken your position I'd certainly be looking for an out as well. You want to be a discussion nazi and say I'm not answering yours when you won't answer mine. That's hypocritical and not very fair to say the least.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position before moving on. I think that's a good idea. That way we're not all forced to make reasonable assumptions when we can just get it right from the horse's mouth.
 
OK and let's keep in mind you said it's up to the individual to decide that. So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?

The obligation isn't to prove that ALL civil disobedience is justified, but only that there are cases where laws are unjust and civil disobedience is acceptable. We aren't arguing that weed is good because there is a law against it, you are trying to argue that weed is bad because there is a law against it. Therefore, the obligation falls on you to prove that it is a just law.
 
So laws only apply to people who think they are just. If you think a law is unjust, it doesn't apply to you. And this is not only ok by you but beneficial to society?
Laws apply to everyone, just or unjust.

And yes, I try to have a rational basis for my decision about the justice of a particular policy. If it is unjust, and people are unduly harmed by it, that can potentially be a pretty serious social problem. As such, I don't feel it my responsibility to uphold these laws.

With that said, I try to make good value judgements, give people the benefit of the doubt, and treat them not only as I'd like to be treated, but as they'd like to be treated. I'm not in favor of behaviors that are cruel or otherwise harmful to other individuals or society as a whole, and I try to act in accordance with those values.
 
Sorry to be so late with this one, I haven't been to this thread for a while... GVC has touched on this, so I apologize if I am repeating anything.

Everybody does things that alter brain chemistry. That is basically what governs emotion and mood. You watch a scary movie, eat a favorite food, listen to music, cheer for a team, or have sex, you're altering the chemistry of your brain. (You'll have to take my word for it on that last one, Conan.)

What about people on anti-depressants? Are they all sad and pathetic? Or pain killers? Hell, Tylenol alters your brain and it's perception of pain. Is it bad that I use ibuprofen now and then?

Marijuana is not PCP.

I used to have a job where the main reading material was the Merck Index, CRC Handbook, PDR, and such. I was intending to become a medicinal chemist. But I got sick, and the doctors had no answers. When I was recovering I went to the Eccles Medical Library at the UofU every day, day in and day out, for about a year or more, reading everything I could.

Our Pharmaceutical industry, from A to Z is held by a group of majority stockholders whose money originally came from Standard Oil when it was even more of a cartel than it is today, loosely called "The Rockefellers". "The Rockefellers were large stakeholders in German pharmaceuticals like Bayer and Pfizer and IG Farben, folks who were complicitly involved in the Nazi death camps as well as our own unethical medical experiments, largely "legitimized" by some beholden university research people.

I have done consulting work for health food companies in regard to the physiological effects of their products. The bottom line is that petoleum-based compounds generally have more severe side effects than natural-sourced unrefined "foods" or "herbs", but even natural things will have effects on your liver, pancreas, kidneys and in general on every organ of your body. Everything can be overdone, abused, and misused with all kinds of ill effects. In my observation, the powerful BigPharma lobbies are working to capture the health market and absolutely exclude competitors, particularly the small fry competitors, since the big fish are so much owned by the same people ultimately it's all in the family.

I believe these folks are not interested in actually curing our diseases and everybody knows they are making tons of money pushing their pills. Unfortunately for those who might want to use something like marijuana sensibly as a herb, or even make rope or manila envelopes from it, it is in the interests of our elites who operate the levers of our government to suppress it. The invention of Nylon which could be used for rope created the lobby to criminalize hemp.

Your best strategy for having a good life is just to avoid substance abuse and keep your liver, pancreas, and kidneys from getting plugged up with chemicals they can't clear very well. Includes eating to much of anything, drinking too much of anything, and avoiding air pollution generally.

And vote for people who will limit the power of government as our only chance to limit the influence of lobbyists working for evil men determined to set up/maintain their cash cow cartels.
 
I used to have a job where the main reading material was the Merck Index, CRC Handbook, PDR, and such. I was intending to become a medicinal chemist. But I got sick, and the doctors had no answers. When I was recovering I went to the Eccles Medical Library at the UofU every day, day in and day out, for about a year or more, reading everything I could.

Our Pharmaceutical industry, from A to Z is held by a group of majority stockholders whose money originally came from Standard Oil when it was even more of a cartel than it is today, loosely called "The Rockefellers". "The Rockefellers were large stakeholders in German pharmaceuticals like Bayer and Pfizer and IG Farben, folks who were complicitly involved in the Nazi death camps as well as our own unethical medical experiments, largely "legitimized" by some beholden university research people.

I have done consulting work for health food companies in regard to the physiological effects of their products. The bottom line is that petoleum-based compounds generally have more severe side effects than natural-sourced unrefined "foods" or "herbs", but even natural things will have effects on your liver, pancreas, kidneys and in general on every organ of your body. Everything can be overdone, abused, and misused with all kinds of ill effects. In my observation, the powerful BigPharma lobbies are working to capture the health market and absolutely exclude competitors, particularly the small fry competitors, since the big fish are so much owned by the same people ultimately it's all in the family.

I believe these folks are not interested in actually curing our diseases and everybody knows they are making tons of money pushing their pills. Unfortunately for those who might want to use something like marijuana sensibly as a herb, or even make rope or manila envelopes from it, it is in the interests of our elites who operate the levers of our government to suppress it. The invention of Nylon which could be used for rope created the lobby to criminalize hemp.

Your best strategy for having a good life is just to avoid substance abuse and keep your liver, pancreas, and kidneys from getting plugged up with chemicals they can't clear very well. Includes eating to much of anything, drinking too much of anything, and avoiding air pollution generally.

And vote for people who will limit the power of government as our only chance to limit the influence of lobbyists working for evil men determined to set up/maintain their cash cow cartels.

This
 
How about the previous paragraph

"Difficult to establish" refers to a current state based on current testing methods. The entire purpse of that site is to discuss testing in raod-side stops, etc., not the theoretical limitations on what can be tested.

If I have not been clear before, let me try to make this crystal clear: you ned to provide evidence that the THC level (not THC metabolite level) of a light/non-smoker is lower when the smoker describes themself as feeling high that the THC level of a heavy smoker when they are not high. This is different from saying the residual THC level of a heavy smoker, after the high, is higher than the residual level of the non-smoker. That's why evidence of the latter is insufficient to make your case. This is also different from saying that the current test methods are not geared to detecting actual intoxicatory levels. Further, it's a very straightforward notion.

For example, look at 2.10 and 3.2 on https://www.idmu.co.uk/pdfs/drugtest.pdf to see the beginnings of such an approach. I don't know if a test can be developed that is as reliable as a blood-alcohol test (which itself is not precise) or not, but I see no evidence that it connot.

You have the goal posts, very specifcally laid out. I won't move them. Can you cross them?
 
Yeah, it's pretty worthless trying to have a discussion with One Brow. ... He does this in pretty much every thread where someone proves him wrong.

As a recent example, in my last discussion with GoJazz, when he accurately pointed out that Fannie Mae was indeed involved with subprime mortgages in 2007 and 2008, I acknowledged my error directly.

However, I do stand corrected on the "exclusively". You're right insofar as in 2007, Fannie Mae started to respond to the loss of market share by pursuing these loans more aggressively, ...

This happened in that thread because GoJazz did the research and found evidence of an error. I've acknowledge errors to a variety of other posters. When you can figure how to do that, and find an error, you'll get the same treatment.
 
Back
Top